The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against three accused persons charged under Section 326 IPC. The court held that the dispute was private in nature and had been settled by the victim, making prosecution pointless.
Crl.M.C. allowed; Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 2587/2019 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 442 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 2587/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
BY ADVS. K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.
BY ADV STAES KINATTUKARA
ADV. SREEJA V. - Sr. PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.M.C No.442 of 2022
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.945/2019 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station which is now pending as C.C No. 2587/2019 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2 is the Final Report submitted by the Police. The 2 nd respondent is the victim of the crime. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2.
2 . Heard Sri. K.R Vinod the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Staes Kinattukara, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
3 . The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure-A3 affidavit. The
3
Crl.M.C No.442 of 2022
aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/injured person also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured person has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.
4
Crl.M.C No.442 of 2022
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.945/2019 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2587/2019 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Sd/
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A
JUDGE
rpk
5
Crl.M.C No.442 of 2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 442/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.945/2019 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.2587/2019 IN THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMICAL OFFENCES). Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 326 IPC should be quashed due to private nature of dispute and settlement between parties.
Whether powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash pending criminal proceedings in this case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108]Referred¶27
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SUBEESH P.U.
ROBIN JOSEPH
SUJITH P.V.
STATE OF KERALA
BIJU V.S.
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
